It's Over

rights are make-believe and created from thin air, they don't exist in a state of nature. you better start believing in states of nature because you're in one

>Constitutional rights not absolute?

Somebody really wants to play minecraft story mode.

Attached: its-happening-scale-618x348.jpg (618x348, 34K)

this. Time to kill these fuckers

and don't bother looking for one who isn't jewish because they don't exist

good afternoon agent spirowitz, they still got you boys working from home?

>Trump postpones presidential election indefinitly, because "constitutional rights are not absolute"
>Trump administers cruel and unusual punishment to everyone who has a problem with that, because "constitutional rights are not absolute"
>Trump ignores courts ruling his actions unconstitutional, because "constitutional rights are not absolute"
Good times comin'.

>That judge is now an enemy of the state and no longer has the right to due process.

Given those terms are presented in what is clearly a clear and just interpretation of constitutional law.... what the FUCK do we do now??

Attached: Elon-Musk-Smokes-Weed.jpg (640x480, 15.5K)

yeah, we're teleworking until 31 May

Press T to thank the courts.
T

>Judge
No

Judge made the correct call.

how do you get the right to a trial when the courts closed.

Nice try Mr. Fed

and? where does it say the government cant lock down things because of a virus.. oh, wait it says just that.

Your "freedom" stops the moment it harms someone else.

Honesty though who cares if some "judges" get what's coming to them? I mean what the fuck is a judge anyway? What makes them so special that we should do what they say?
I didn't vote for them lmao!

yeah
they have a piece of paper that says i can't just like i have a piece of paper that says i can
i'm just gonna do the shit i wanna do lol, fuck the police
it's not like i'm irresponsible, just not a bitch

Who is being harmed?
Be specific, I want names.
Vague concepts like societal harm hold no weight, or the civil rights act would have been ruled invalid decades ago.

The judge is wrong. Without declaring Martial Law, their freedoms cannot be taken away.

mommy knows best
mommy is so pretty
i love my mommy

Attached: 5b841ad1b923f.image.jpg (400x225, 12.01K)

if the constitution isn't absolute, then what law is?

>t. plumber assistant with half a GED

lmao no it doesn't you dumb fuck

MY FEELINGS

Attached: IMG_6416.jpg (1024x576, 119.63K)

I don't need to provide you any evidence, the court ruled in my favour suck it

the U.S government hasn't been legitimate for a long time now

>"Being forced ... by the state to remain in one’s home, in turn causing many residents to be unable to work, visit elderly relatives, and to generally move about the state," does infringe on constitutional rights in the short term, Murray wrote.

"But those liberty interests are, and always have been, subject to society’s interest —society being our fellow residents. They — our fellow residents — have an interest to remain unharmed by a highly communicable and deadly virus."

how the fuck did this retard pass law school

what is your home address and do you sleep in the nude?

Say Anons, you bring the Tar, I bring the Feathers?

>does infringe on constitutional rights in the short term
this is the most important part to reveal to normies. hearing this will bring a boogaloo

>Constitutional rights not absolute

Attached: ewok wtf.jpg (224x203, 31.52K)

see
What makes the opinion of a judge more valid than that of a plumber's assistant with half a GED if they come to the conclusion that God given rights are not absolute?

Somehow illegal aliens can't be just chucked over the border without "due process", and the federal government can't strip funding from sanctuary states, but the Constitution "isn't absolute" when it comes to forcing Americans to stay home! LMAO
Fuck that.
Fuck judges.
Fuck you.

Chink

while this is absolutely true, nobody is going to actually do their duty and that's why our rights are going to continue to be stripped away from us.

New narrative > our fellow residents — have an interest to remain unharmed by a highly communicable and deadly virus."
and here as well
youtu.be/COFdZ-64M6M?t=171

I doubt it. My normie friends back in the US got mad when I said the state was taking their rights away from them and insisted it was just 'temporarily restricting some rights'. Mental gymnastics know no bounds.

I told you guys long ago the Constitution is nullified by emergency powers act

Attached: 1552768088557.png (715x509, 596.83K)

you and anons won't do shit because you're all a bunch of cowards. cowards make things worse for future generations.

Who cares what the court says?
What are you going to do if I don't abide by the Court's ruling?
Kill me?
lmao
Fuck judges.
Fuck you.

This user gets it, it's interesting that this piece of legislation is still open to be brought before the Supreme Court tho en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

In addition to just rights, a family couldn't go home.

Attached: none of this matters virus.jpg (679x445, 71.77K)

Who is the judge?

Unless the supreme's state otherwise, I don't give a fuck.

if they just kill you that alone will be worth it

>>"Being forced ... by the state to remain in one’s home, in turn causing many residents to be unable to work, visit elderly relatives, and to generally move about the state," does infringe on constitutional rights in the short term, Murray wrote.
>"But those liberty interests are, and always have been, subject to society’s interest —society being our fellow residents. They — our fellow residents — have an interest to remain unharmed by a highly communicable and deadly virus."
i read it in his voice

Attached: dr breen.jpg (1024x715, 95.69K)

That judge deserves death

Attached: 1587491515869.jpg (183x275, 9.79K)

Daily reminder that "think-tanks" like the Council on Foreign Relations have been devising strategies to implement world government, erode national sovereignty and subvert constitutional protections/limitations for almost a century now.

"In this unhappy state of affairs, few people retain much confidence in the more ambitious strategies for world order that had wide backing a generation ago—"world federalism," "charter review," and "world peace through world law." The consensus on basic values and willingness to entrust vital interests to community judgment clearly do not exist. One need only picture a world constitutional convention including Messrs. Nixon, Brezhnev, Mao, Brandt, Pompidou, Castro, Peron, and Qaddafi, not to mention Mmes. Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi. What rules or procedures for world government could they agree upon?"

"In short, the "house of world order" will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great "booming, buzzing confusion," to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. Of course, for political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system, but the main thing is that the essential functions be performed.
The question is whether this more modest approach can do the job. Can it really bring mankind into the twenty-first century with reasonable prospects for peace, welfare and human dignity? The argument thus far suggests it better had, for there seems to be no alternative. But the evidence also suggests some grounds for cautious optimism."

The Hard Road to World Order by Richard N. Gardner (in magazine Foreign Affairs, April 1974, Volume 52, Number 3)

>My normie friends back in the US
oh so your fellow weeb faggots who arent "deep" enough to become engilsh teacher pedos?

>"But those liberty interests are, and always have been, subject to society’s interest
Odd

Attached: bor society.png (546x139, 10.75K)

That's a lot of incorrect assumptions. Let me know when the normie boogaloo begins